Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring: reduce latency by reissueing the operation | From | Olivier Langlois <> | Date | Sun, 20 Jun 2021 17:05:48 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2021-06-20 at 20:56 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 6/20/21 8:05 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > > > > -static bool io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req) > > +#define IO_ARM_POLL_OK 0 > > +#define IO_ARM_POLL_ERR 1 > > +#define IO_ARM_POLL_READY 2 > > Please add a new line here. Can even be moved somewhere > to the top, but it's a matter of taste.
If you let me decide, I prefer to let them close to where they are used. There is so much data definitions in the heading section that I feel like putting very minor implementation details to it might overwhelm newcomers instead of helping them to grasp the big picture.
but I will add an extra space as you request > > Also, how about to rename it to apoll? io_uring internal > rw/send/recv polling is often abbreviated as such around > io_uring.c > IO_APOLL_OK and so on.
no problem. I will. > > > +static int io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req) > > { > > const struct io_op_def *def = &io_op_defs[req->opcode]; > > struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx; > > @@ -5153,22 +5156,22 @@ static bool io_arm_poll_handler(struct > > io_kiocb *req) > > int rw; > > > > if (!req->file || !file_can_poll(req->file)) > > - return false; > > + return IO_ARM_POLL_ERR; > > It's not really an error. Maybe IO_APOLL_ABORTED or so?
Ok.
| |